Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> If the latter, it's nonsensical to say that religious people are more 
>>> moral or kinder or whatever than areligious people.
>>
>>   That depends on the definition of morality. Who says your definition is
>> better than someone else's?
> 
> I thought that was the point of religion, yes? If you actually start 
> talking about *why* one set of morals is better than another, then 
> you're not longer talking about religion, but science. I have no bones 
> to pick with that approach.
> 
>>> If you're going to take something as clear as most of the comandments 
>>> are, and add interpretations and exceptions, then the religion stops 
>>> having anything to do with it.
>>
>>   In your opinion religion cannot have generic rules with exceptions,
>> in the exact same way as for example constitutions and penal laws have?
>> Religion can only have absolutes?
> 
> Human laws have checks and balances built in. When there's a death 
> penalty, there's an explicit law stating the person pulling the switch 
> is not guilty of murder. 

I think there is another twist to this discussion. Given that there is a 
law that permits the death penalty the *state* has the option to kill 
someone, and indeed someone has to execute that. Assuming that the 
members of the parliament that passed this law are Christians. That 
means that they decided that there were things that are of higher 
morality than the commandments. As a true Christian (or jew or muslim 
for that matter) can you do that? And what would that higher source be? 
(I know that some Dutch Christians refer to Paul's letter to the Romans 
chapter 13 for this, is that approach common elsewhere?)

[snip]

Post a reply to this message